Ex parte Burr
| Decision Date | 17 March 1824 |
| Citation | 22 U.S. 529,9 Wheat. 529,6 L.Ed. 152 |
| Parties | Ex parte BURR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a motion for a mandamus to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, to restore Mr. Burr to his place of attorney at the bar of that Court.
It is a very unusual application, on which the Court has felt considerable doubts.
On one hand, the profession of an attorney is of great importance to an individual, and the prosperity of his whole life may depend on its exercise. The right to exercise it ought not to be lightly or capriciously taken from him. On the other, it is extremely desirable that the respectability of the bar should be maintained, and that its harmony with the bench should be preserved. For these objects, some controlling power, some discretion ought to reside in the Court. This discretion ought to be exercised with great moderation and judgment; but it must be exercised; and no other tribunal can decide, in a case of removal from the bar, with the same means of information as the Court itself. If there be a revising tribunal, which possesses controlling authority, that tribunal will always feel the delicacy of interposing its authority, and would do so only in a plain case.
Some doubts are felt in this Court respecting the extent of its authority as to the conduct of the Circuit and District Courts towards their officers; but without deciding on this question, the Court is not inclined to interpose, unless it were in a case where the conduct of the Circuit or District Court was irregular, or was flagrantly improper.
In the case at bar, the proceedings were supposed to be irregular, because Mr. Burr was put to answer charges not made on oath.
That the charges, in a regular complaint against an attorney, ought not to be received and acted on, unless made on oath, is admitted. It is a course of proceeding which is recommended by considerations too obvious to require that they should be urged. But this is not a proceeding of that description. The Court did not call on Mr. Burr to answer an accusation in the nature of an information against him. The inquiry was invited by himself; the charges were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ministries
...exercised with great caution[.]" Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. at 43 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. 529, 9 Wheat. 529, 531, 6 L. Ed. 152 (1824)). "Because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion." Id. at 44 (c......
-
Schutts v. Bentley Nevada Corp.
...not in statutes or rules but in the "control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs"); Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529, 531, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824) (upholding power of court to discipline attorneys who appear before it); Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 227, 5 L......
-
Whitehouse v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Rhode Island
...to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it." Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43, 111 S.Ct. at 2132 (citing Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529, 531, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824)). See also Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera- Rios, 846 F.2d 94, 97 (1st Cir.1988) ("[i]t is well settled in th......
-
In re Rust v. Missouri Dental Board, 37048.
...in violation of Section 25, Article II of the Constitution of Missouri. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 355, 20 L. Ed. 646; Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529, 6 L. Ed. 152; People v. Berezniak, 292 Ill. 305, 123 N.E. 36; Barrett v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners of California, 40 Pac. (2d) 923; Randa......